Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider
registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.

Serious question: is proposing an alternate explanation for some of Zimmerman's injuries in which an admitted killer, with a demonstrable willingness to lie, may have inflicted some of his own injuries, a "conspiracy theory"? Especially when we're trying to explain why even though he claims Trayvon placed both hands on his bleeding nose and abrasioned face, none of the blood transferred to his hands?

Aside from that, my question was actually about how he looked on his walkthrough. He claimed he was punched in the face 30 times, including 3 times directly to the nose. He claims that he was hit with what felt like "bricks", meaning they were not light punches, but extremely hard punches. Did he look like a beating victim to you (well, aside from the three bandaids he put on his own head before the taping)?

So... No theory as to how Martin remained amazingly free of Zimmerman's blood, then. Just straw men arguments.

Anyone else want give it a go?

How did Martin keep all of that blood off of him while he repeatedly punched Zimmerman's bloody face, repeatedly bashed Zimmerman's bloody head onto the ground, and attempted to smother him with his bare hands?

And don't forget slid that punch-to-bloody-nose hand down Z's torso without getting any blood smear on Z's shirt or jacket...

Are you just pointing out something weird or are you actually getting at something by posting this oddity? What is it you think it means?

I think his injuries are a result of a combination of falling and maybe T getting a lick in as Z tried to detain him.

I see no motive for a teenager, with no history of violence, and was generally mild mannered and who was afraid of being followed by a "creepy man" following him to do what Z says he did. The homicide detectives could not see that sort of motive either.

On the other hand, we do know Z had a strong motive to detain cause "these ******** always get away."

So you are proposing that GZ self inflicted those wounds which makes my questions not all that silly. Is there any report, considering from less than a minute after the gunshot, till his photos were taken, Zimmerman was never alone, it is reasonable to assume that those self inflicted injuries would have been witnessed by someone.

There was at least one witness who saw George walking away with his hands on his head. And I don't know where you established that he had less than one minute in order to do this, but it would take only ten seconds.

He looks down, sees the people around him, it's dark, he says "oh crap, what did I just do?" and panics and marks up his own face with his hands.

Is there proof of that? No, of course not. But it would explain the blood not being anywhere on Trayvon. Is it impossible? No. Would George lie? I think we've established pretty well that he will. So can this be discounted? No. Can it be considered truth? No.

But it's not a CT, since it's just about whether or no an admitted killer and known liar would quickly scratch his own head after killing someone to embellish his own narrative. You know, like claiming he never followed the kid, or claiming unbelievable dialogue, etc, etc.

Serious question: is proposing an alternate explanation for some of Zimmerman's injuries in which an admitted killer, with a demonstrable willingness to lie, may have inflicted some of his own injuries, a "conspiracy theory"? Especially when we're trying to explain why even though he claims Trayvon placed both hands on his bleeding nose and abrasioned face, none of the blood transferred to his hands?

Rare Truth has proposed and/or implied theories about the SPD lying to support GZ. Like about statements a LEO heard that couldn't have been uttered, etc. This is not just about GZ injuries.

Originally Posted by Unabogie

Aside from that, my question was actually about how he looked on his walkthrough. He claimed he was punched in the face 30 times, including 3 times directly to the nose. He claims that he was hit with what felt like "bricks", meaning they were not light punches, but extremely hard punches. Did he look like a beating victim to you (well, aside from the three bandaids he put on his own head before the taping)?

I don't have experience with how battered someone is supposed to look. I have seen people walk out of the ring after 12 rounds of boxing looking better. Does that count ?

All of the LEO and EMT statements say GZ looks battered, bloodied, and bruised.

By the way, now that you think the SPD did a good job, you should talk to Rare Truth about it. He thinks they did an awful job.

Rare Truth has proposed and/or implied theories about the SPD lying to support GZ. Like about statements a LEO heard that couldn't have been uttered, etc. This is not just about GZ injuries.

You mean things that are backed up with statements, like this:

Chief Lee telling this version of Z's story:

“If someone asks you, ‘Hey do you live here?’ is it OK for you to jump on them and beat the crap out of somebody? It’s not.” -Resigned, unresigned Police Chief Lee, on the Trayvon Martin incident, March 15, 2012

Serious question: is proposing an alternate explanation for some of Zimmerman's injuries in which an admitted killer, with a demonstrable willingness to lie, may have inflicted some of his own injuries, a "conspiracy theory"?

Serious answer: considering the facts and evidence of the case, I think "bat**** insane" would probably be a better description than "conspiracy theory".

All of the LEO and EMT statements say GZ looks battered, bloodied, and bruised.

But what's great is that we have documentation of his actual, specific injuries so we don't have to resort to generalizations that can be broadly interpreted.

So what's your theory as to how Martin remained free of Zimmerman's blood while repeatedly punching his bloody face, repeatedly bashing his bloody head onto the ground, and attempting to smother him, all with his bare hands?

Apart from the large number of calls in which GZ finds black males like TM "suspicious," this call sounds interesting. Was GZ stiffing his landlord? It sounds like he called the cops because the landlord tried to collect the rent. What do we know about GZ's living situation?

But what's great is that we have documentation of his actual, specific injuries so we don't have to resort to generalizations that can be broadly interpreted.

So what's your theory as to how Martin remained free of Zimmerman's blood while repeatedly punching his bloody face, repeatedly bashing his bloody head onto the ground, and attempting to smother him, all with his bare hands?

You go first and tell me your theory of how things happened.
Please be sure to account for all the witness statements that generally support and do not contradict GZ story. Especially the part about how he saw someone come out while he was underneath TM and say he was going to call 911 and he pleaded to him for help. Just like the initial witness statement.

I think his injuries are a result of a combination of falling and maybe T getting a lick in as Z tried to detain him.

I see no motive for a teenager, with no history of violence, and was generally mild mannered and who was afraid of being followed by a "creepy man" following him to do what Z says he did. The homicide detectives could not see that sort of motive either.

On the other hand, we do know Z had a strong motive to detain cause "these ******** always get away."

You extrapolate convenient information and dismiss inconvenient information, adding what you think you know to support your theory. It's really terrible logic.

Your theory is that Zimmerman tried to detain Zimmerman, Zimmerman fell and hit his head, and maybe Trayvon got one punch in. This is supported by what? Let's see, John, who even in his vague second statement reports seeing two people on the ground one on top of the other; the dog walker, who again, regardless of how vague, saw two people wrestling on the ground; Witness 1 or 2, who also saw two people on the ground, one with arms flailing. That doesn't exactly coincide with Zimmerman fell and Trayvon got one lick. How many times did Zimmerman fall because he had multiple cuts on the back of his head. Did he bounce face first to break his nose (or is that the single "maybe" lick that Trayvon got in) then do a full 180 to bounce the back of his head, before Zimmerman, for apparently no reason at all, whipped out his Mel Gibson special to shoot first, ask later?

You just listed how many phone calls that Zimmerman made? How many of those other phone calls did Zimmerman end up trying to detain the person? 0 so we do have a history, there, but you choose to ignore it.

These ******** always get away, indicate that he does feel like they get away. Only in your already decided mind, is that evidence of clear motive.

You are free to think that but coming into a thread with a theory supported predominantly by conclusions you've drawn from suppositions about other people "feel" and then acting surprised that other people disagree is just again, really bad logic. Take away what you think you know about what other people are thinking and what do you have left?

A McCain campaign volunteer who claimed she was robbed, pinned to the ground and had the letter 'B' scratched on her face by a Barack Obama supporter made the whole story up, police said.
Ashley Todd, 20-year-old college student from Texas, admitted that the story was false, including the claim that the 'B' stood for 'Barack,' said Maurita Bryant, the assistant chief of the police department's investigations division in Pittsburg.
Todd was charged with making a false report to police, and Bryant said police doubted her story from the start.

And she didn't have a motive to do this. George certainly had a motive to cover up his actions that led to the shooting. Did he do this for sure? Again, I don't know. I am just saying that he doesn't look like someone who got punched with a brick 30 times. None of his blood is on Trayvon's hands or clothes. This part of his story doesn't match what we can all plainly see.

This is what Gilbreath meant when he said the injuries and locations don't match George's story. They don't.

Ok, I have actual work to do today, so have fun. I'll try and post more at lunch time.

You go first and tell me your theory of how things happened.
Please be sure to account for all the witness statements that generally support and do not contradict GZ story. Especially the part about how he saw someone come out while he was underneath TM and say he was going to call 911 and he pleaded to him for help. Just like the initial witness statement.

Martin punches Zimmerman in the nose. They go to the ground and Zimmerman scrapes and cuts his head in the ensuing struggle. At some point, Martin is able to wrestle his way on top of Zimmerman, perhaps, as Witness #6 alleges, in an attempt to subdue him. Zimmerman screams for help. Zimmerman shoots and kills Martin. Zimmerman manufactures a tale of a savage beating to tell the cops. A bunch of people on an internet forum struggle to reconcile the facts with Zimmerman's narrative.

Apart from the large number of calls in which GZ finds black males like TM "suspicious," this call sounds interesting. Was GZ stiffing his landlord? It sounds like he called the cops because the landlord tried to collect the rent. What do we know about GZ's living situation?

We know he sucks when it comes to paying his bills.

His CC (iirc) had to go to collections -- they negotiated a settlement, and he still stiffed them.

You extrapolate convenient information and dismiss inconvenient information, adding what you think you know to support your theory. It's really terrible logic.

Your theory is that Zimmerman tried to detain Zimmerman, Zimmerman fell and hit his head, and maybe Trayvon got one punch in. This is supported by what? Let's see, John, who even in his vague second statement reports seeing two people on the ground one on top of the other; the dog walker, who again, regardless of how vague, saw two people wrestling on the ground; ...

IU stopped there.

The dog walker said he saw one person on the ground in the followup interview - said he had been crying for help. Just saw one...thought it was a red jacket...he thought he was screaming because he thought the guy crying for help had fallen down and broken his leg.

As to your first paragraph: We all do that to some degree. Do you do that?

And she didn't have a motive to do this. George certainly had a motive to cover up his actions that led to the shooting. Did he do this for sure? Again, I don't know. I am just saying that he doesn't look like someone who got punched with a brick 30 times. None of his blood is on Trayvon's hands or clothes. This part of his story doesn't match what we can all plainly see.

This is what Gilbreath meant when he said the injuries and locations don't match George's story. They don't.

Ok, I have actual work to do today, so have fun. I'll try and post more at lunch time.

Can we, again, dial back the personal stuff? Thanks.

Seriously, telling you that your theory is crazy or pointing out really bad use of logic is not a personal attack.

You are still pulling in wild things to assert your theory, that is based almost entirely on your own suppositions. Your "motive" gets challenged but rather than admit that there is no "clear" motive, you choose to say "well, here, this person acted without a motive so George could be acting without a motive." In that case, Trayvon could have been acting without a motive. He could have decided, for no reason, to go all MMA on George. Not that I think that is the case either but I am just pointing out how one sided the argument is.

I don't know, I already told you I put you back on ignore after I asked you to back up your statements, and you didn't.

Originally Posted by Rare Truth

The passive aggressive game will only go so far, bud. You kept saying I did not back something up. You did not tell WHAT I needed to back up, but continued to taunt me.

I am not your 'bud.' I did specifically tell you what statements to back up.

Here, I'll refresh your memory:

Quote:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rare Truth
That's funny. lol How bad can it be? George messed up the first time he went up there, and it seems clear to many of us Z's contradictory statements to police the night of the shooting is part of the reason why the lead homicide detective found probable cause to charge him in the first place.

Did you really think that one through?

I'm not terribly surprised you think your opinion is that much better than everyone elses

You are relying on Christopher Serino - “The best evidence we have is the testimony of George Zimmerman, and he says the decedent was the primary aggressor in the whole event,” Serino told the Sentinel March 16. “Everything I have is adding up to what he says.”"

Everything he has, except all the contradictions, right ?

You have evidence to back up the hilited part ?

Originally Posted by Rare Truth

Then I asked AGAIN --WHAT?? Basically: What the heck are you talking about? WHAT didn't I back up?? Get it? You NEVER explained that part.

lol. I didn't know I needed permission from George himself to call him Tugboat.

As far as the rest, people here can read our posts. I've provided all that needs to be provided. What you want is me to waste time and energy to go chasing a nebulous tail only to get a nuh uh from you in reply.

BTW: I thought you said you had me on ignore.

Ring the bell, blow the whistle and honk the horn! It's a carnOval!

Originally Posted by Rare Truth

When I asked you AGAIN, after that...what is it you think I didn't back up? Nothing.

Then you nonchalantly began to start interacting with me. (and I recall some comments to me between then)

No, you don't. Post a link.

Originally Posted by Rare Truth

Question to the board: If someone deletes a post, is there any way to tell it's been deleted?

Apart from the large number of calls in which GZ finds black males like TM "suspicious," this call sounds interesting. Was GZ stiffing his landlord? It sounds like he called the cops because the landlord tried to collect the rent. What do we know about GZ's living situation?

We know that forclosure doesn't apply to renters. Maybe the original owner had lost the house and was trying to collect rent on a property they didn't own. How does that reflect badly on GZ?

We also know that Zimmerman calling about black males that many times in 3 years has been thoroughly debunked, just like your last bogus assertion. When the police ask for a description, *they* write down 'black male'.

Quote:

This article was amended to reflect the following correction: Due to incorrect information provided by the Sanford Police, the Herald misstated the course of time in which George Zimmerman called police 46 times. The calls began in 2004, not Jan. 2011.

From January 1, 2011 through February 26, 2012, police were called to The Retreat at Twin Lakes 402 times.[86] Eleven of those calls were made by Zimmerman for a variety of concerns, from potholes and a stray dog to suspicious activity.[85][89][90][85][Note 2] Crimes committed at The Retreat in the year prior to Martin's death included eight burglaries, nine thefts, and one shooting. In addition there were dozens of reports of attempted break-ins; in one case a woman with an infant hid in an upstairs room until the police arrived and scared away the intruders, who had already entered her home and disconnected the television.

The dog walker said he saw one person on the ground in the followup interview - said he had been crying for help. Just saw one...thought it was a red jacket...he thought he was screaming because he thought the guy crying for help had fallen down and broken his leg.

As to your first paragraph: We all do that to some degree. Do you do that?

Okay, I will give you that but what about the other witnesses?

I feel I have maintained my arguments based on what I can present as plausible based on recordings and evidence. I try to avoid basing my arguments on what I think is going on in people's heads and for the most part, if my position rests on that, I scratch it.

Yes, in Florida, it's a regular occurrence. Especially since it was a minor drizzle, not all that different than we are getting right now in Central Florida.

You are referring to Tropical Storm Debby?

The point is that the poster's assertion that many people must have been wandering around in that particular gated community on that particular night, and therefore, saw Zimmerman and Martin before the fight, is not supported by facts in evidence.

Yes, in Florida, it's a regular occurrence. Especially since it was a minor drizzle, not all that different than we are getting right now in Central Florida.

We just got hit pretty hard with another pocket of rain. I think it's heading up towards you. Glad to see you posting today, If I remember where you are, correctly, you guys had some serious warning, last night.

Seriously, telling you that your theory is crazy or pointing out really bad use of logic is not a personal attack.

You are still pulling in wild things to assert your theory, that is based almost entirely on your own suppositions. Your "motive" gets challenged but rather than admit that there is no "clear" motive, you choose to say "well, here, this person acted without a motive so George could be acting without a motive." In that case, Trayvon could have been acting without a motive. He could have decided, for no reason, to go all MMA on George. Not that I think that is the case either but I am just pointing out how one sided the argument is.

So if I reply: "Everything you say is stupid. You exhibit all the logic of a potted palm."

Is that how you want this topic to go? I ask for more civility and you reply that it's not necessary? Do you really read this last page or two as being somehow instructive and intended to help posters understand things better?

The closest thing I can get to knowing what you were talking (by hitting the arrow button after our replies) about was THIS statement I made, which you called an opinion:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rare Truth
That's funny. lol How bad can it be? George messed up the first time he went up there, and it seems clear to many of us Z's contradictory statements to police the night of the shooting is part of the reason why the lead homicide detective found probable cause to charge him in the first place.

So if I reply: "Everything you say is stupid. You exhibit all the logic of a potted palm."

Is that how you want this topic to go? I ask for more civility and you reply that it's not necessary? Do you really read this last page or two as being somehow instructive and intended to help posters understand things better?

Again, how about we dial this back a bit, just for fun, huh?

I don't see how you took, "those aren't personal attacks," as civility is not necessary. It's attacking the argument, not the arguer. I didn't take you accusing me of rationalizing a few pages ago, as a personal attack, just because you used the word "you". I know you are attacking my argument. There is a huge difference between "Your theory is bunk," and "everything you say is bunk."

I don't see how you took, "those aren't personal attacks," as civility is not necessary. It's attacking the argument, not the arguer. I didn't take you accusing me of rationalizing a few pages ago, as a personal attack, just because you used the word "you". I know you are attacking my argument. There is a huge difference between "Your theory is bunk," and "everything you say is bunk."

693 comes BEFORE 699, doesn't it? You just said my reply to you BEFORE the post was my reply AFTER.
[...]

I don't understand why you are having a problem following this. You made a claim. I asked you to back it up. More than once.

Your response, in part, was:

Quote:

As far as the rest, people here can read our posts. I've provided all that needs to be provided. What you want is me to waste time and energy to go chasing a nebulous tail only to get a nuh uh from you in reply.

So I posted 12698 and put you on ignore. How is that hard to follow ?

I took you off ignore this morning, and am still waiting for you to provide a cite that states the cartridge was found under the body.
You haven't.

I posted two pictures, one of which you posted to demonstrate GZ story was inaccurate and asked you which one best describes what you think happened.
Again, you didn't answer.

Is that the bitches name? (She might end up being worse than Faye WRT: rainfall totals)

Originally Posted by crimresearch

The point is that the poster's assertion that many people must have been wandering around in that particular gated community on that particular night, and therefore, saw Zimmerman and Martin before the fight, is not supported by facts in evidence.

I would agree, but I didn't see that.

My only point was, as I am sure you remember, is that a minor drizzle in Florida will not prevent people from being out, in general. It is not suspicious in any sense of the word. It's not uncommon.

(As an aside, I just saw my 85 y/o neighbor walk down the street with his little dog, and it's drizzling outside.)

We know that forclosure doesn't apply to renters. Maybe the original owner had lost the house and was trying to collect rent on a property they didn't own. How does that reflect badly on GZ?

We also know that Zimmerman calling about black males that many times in 3 years has been thoroughly debunked, just like your last bogus assertion. When the police ask for a description, *they* write down 'black male'.
.....

I think we all get that GZ had the sense not to call the cops and say "I see black people!" What he did do is see black people and conclude that they were suspicious. He saw TM walking down the street at 7 p.m., and told police that he was "a suspicious guy... looks like he's up to no good or he's on drugs .... just walking around and looking about." It would be interesting to know how many, if any, of GZ's calls resulted in arrests, or even any direct contacts between police and GZ's "suspects." And if it was as crime-ridden as you say, it sounds like the Neighborhood Watch wasn't very effective. It wouldn't have cost much to install some cameras at the community access points, or even locked gates with passcard access.

And if GZ wasn't paying rent to somebody who was not the owner, was he paying it to somebody who was? Or did he expect a free ride?

Martin punches Zimmerman in the nose. They go to the ground and Zimmerman scrapes and cuts his head in the ensuing struggle. At some point, Martin is able to wrestle his way on top of Zimmerman, perhaps, as Witness #6 alleges, in an attempt to subdue him. Zimmerman screams for help. Zimmerman shoots and kills Martin. Zimmerman manufactures a tale of a savage beating to tell the cops. A bunch of people on an internet forum struggle to reconcile the facts with Zimmerman's narrative.

Your turn.

That works for me, or close enough. A 'savage beating' is in the eye of the beholder.
If things went as you described, it is as has been claimed numerous times - an unlucky combination of events gone terribly wrong that ended in the unfortunate death of a young man.